Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

[DonaldFisk]

The number or quality of matching words is not the only sign that the two languages may have a unity of origin. In addition to this, there must be other overlaps. I show them below and I will write some of the resources I have benefited from here. But know that the number of words that overlap between Turkish and Etruscan language is much higher.

So what are these words?

TURKISH > ETRUSKIC STRUCTURAL SIMILARITY
These common features are:
1) Voice harmony,
2) Absence of gender,
3) Absence of article (letter describe/definition preposition)
4) Conjugation of the verb with suffixes;
5) Use of possessive/property suffix in conjugation;
6) The richness of verb forms;
7.) No (or not much) prefixes such as Turkish (but not like similar as in Indo-European languages)
8) Adjectives are before nouns;
9) Not using plurals after numbers;
10) Using the form from in comparison;
11) using the verb "to be", that is -imek, as an auxiliary verb;
12) Finding special verbs with negative meaning;
13) Having a question word-suffix;
14) It is the existence of verb forms that serve as bonds
(Source: A. Ayda; 2020:167).

1) Etruscan didn't have vowel harmony.   Finnish does, but isn't related to Turkish
2) Only Indoeuropean and Afroasiatic languages have genders.   Etruscan did have gender in personal names.   Chinese lacks genders and is unrelated to Turkish.
3) Etruscan had an enclitic definite article (Wallace p63).   Latin and Russian lack articles and are unrelated to Turkish.
4) There were only endings in Etruscan for tense and voice, not for person or number.   Greek has rich verb forms, and is unrelated to Turkish.
5) I don't know what you mean by this.
6) See 4.
7) I don't know what you mean by this.
8) Adjectives generally came after nouns in Etruscan.
9) Sometimes nouns are in plural when qualified by a number (Bonfante p100), sometimes not (Bonfante p67).
10) No known inscriptions with comparisons.
11) No evidence, and the verb root for "to be" was "am-".   This is well-known.
12) No evidence.
13) No evidence.  No known inscriptions with questions.
14) I don't know what you mean by this.

Before replying, I suggest you read either the books by the Bonfantes and Rex Wallace (the best introductions to the Etruscan language) to learn what is accepted by scholars, rather than fringe theories.   Also, please quote sources written in English.   Not many people here will know Turkish.

None of this helps your case with the Voynich Manuscript.